Cars of Futures Past – 1986 Ford Taurus

Ask an automotive enthusiast to name the most important cars in Ford Motor Company history, and products like the Model T and Model A will surely make the list. The Mustang will be there as well, but one car that likely won’t be included is the first generation Ford Taurus (and its fraternal twin, the Mercury Sable), despite the fact that it pioneered modern development methods, boasted (at the time) the largest development budget of any car in Ford’s history, and ultimately prevented a bankruptcy that may have doomed the blue-oval brand. It’s no exaggeration to call the original Taurus one of the most significant cars of the 1980s, and the advancements in design, styling and build quality it pioneered make it a truly forward-thinking automobile.

To understand the significance of the Taurus, it’s necessary to go back in time to the early 1980s. Faced with an aging product line filled with family cars like the Fairmont, Granada and LTD, Ford found itself rapidly losing ground to both domestic and foreign brands. While its new front-drive Escort was selling well, a compact car is not sufficient to carry a brand, and in late 1983 Ford introduced the contemporary front-drive Tempo as a replacement for the outdated Fairmont. While it had taken a step in the right direction, the automaker was far from out of the woods.

In 1981, Ford began work on an all-new midsize car to replace the Granada (and its interim successor, the Fox-platform LTD). Borrowing a page from the Escort, which had been developed globally, the Taurus introduced a new methodology for creating an American automobile: Instead of working in isolation toward distinct but separate goals, teams from design, engineering and marketing would work together to create the Taurus. Under the guidance of designer Jack Telnack, “Team Taurus” set to work with a clean sheet of paper.

In the past, Detroit had been accustomed to telling the American consumer what he wanted in a car. This time, Ford’s marketing staff asked focus groups what they expected in a family sedan or station wagon, and the research into the car’s development went so far as to examine variables like insurance cost, ease of repair and even advanced ergonomics for the driver. Engineering teams ripped apart hundreds of cars from competitive brands, reverse engineering each one to determine the best practices employed by various manufacturers. What allowed for this extensive research and development was the budget set aside for the Taurus: At $3.5 billion, it was the largest in Ford’s history. For comparison, a mere $870 million had been allocated for the development of the Ford Fiesta subcompact.

Knowing that the car’s launch would be as important as its development, Ford spared no expense in a mid-1985 Hollywood premiere (held at MGM Studios Soundstage 85) that featured space themes to highlight the futuristic nature of the car. Its ovoid shape was a huge departure from the norm of the day, and critics weren’t sure how to react. Chrysler (and even some Ford executives) thought that the car’s bold, grille-less styling had gone too far, and predicted that the Taurus would be a huge failure for the automaker when it hit the road at year end. To hedge its bet, Ford continued to produce the Fox platform LTD, but the die had been cast: If the Taurus turned out to be a failure, the billions spent on its development would have dragged the company into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

As it turned out, the money invested in the development of the Taurus was well spent. Journalists almost universally praised the car for the handling and ride comfort of its fully independent suspension, and its aerodynamic shape (further aided by features like flush window glass) helped produce gains in both fuel economy and cabin noise reduction. Even in down-market variants such as the base “L” trim, the Taurus felt better-equipped and better put together than anything else in the segment, including cars costing significantly more money. To no one’s surprise, Motor Trend named the Taurus its “Car of the Year” for 1986, while Car and Driver appointed it to the “10 Best” list the same year.

Early production models all came with Ford’s 3.0-liter (183-cu.in.) V-6, rated at 140 horsepower and 160 pound-feet of torque and mated to a four-speed automatic transmission with overdrive. Late in the car’s first model year, Ford also introduced a 2.5-liter (153-cu.in.) four-cylinder engine, rated at 88 horsepower and 130 pound-feet of torque and mated to a three-speed automatic transmission. Initially used as the base engine in L-trim models, the four-cylinder would appear in a sport-themed 5MT MT-5 trim level that debuted in 1987; as the name implied, this was meant to be a “driver’s Taurus,” equipped with a five-speed manual transmission and amenities comparable to the better-equipped GL trim level. Though 88 horsepower was hardly sufficient to capture the enthusiast buyer market, it did foreshadow the 1989 appearance of a much more substantial Taurus sport sedan: the Yamaha-engined Ford Taurus SHO.

In its debut year, Ford sold a total of 178,737 Taurus sedans and an additional 57,625 Taurus station wagons, while Mercury sold 71,707 Sable sedans and 23,931 Sable station wagons. A year later, that number would jump to 278,562 sedans and 96,201 wagons for Ford, plus 91,001 sedans and 30,312 wagons for Mercury, proving that the American consumer had no trouble warming to the car’s futuristic styling. For 1986, the Taurus and Sable helped Ford deliver pretax earnings that exceeded those of rival General Motors for the first time since 1924, and the demand for the cars helped boost Ford’s stock price by 76 percent in 1987. Ford’s big roll of the dice had paid off, and the success of the Taurus helped propel the automaker into the 21st century.

Though it’s easy to look at the Taurus as just another forgettable car of the 1980s from an enthusiast’s standpoint, it’s important to frame the car with a bit of history. Prior to the Taurus, Ford’s family sedans were of the traditional front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, saddled with outdated designs like live rear axles and often built (in the late 1970s and early 1980s, at least) with a blind eye towards quality. The Taurus’s front-wheel-drive layout allowed for less weight (and hence, better fuel economy) and increased interior room, and its independent suspension design yielded handling that few expected from an American family sedan. More importantly, the Taurus was among the first cars of its generation to demonstrate that American automakers were capable of meeting or exceeding the quality standards set by foreign automakers, including luxury brands. While today’s Taurus is no longer the same quantum leap forward as the original model, that car served as proof that sometimes a long shot does pay big dividends.

Howard Arbituresays:

January 30, 2014 8:08 am

My love for the modern automobile died the day I saw this cars debut. It went against everything I cherished in a car. I know, people have had great success with these, and a friend’s SHO model sure set me back in the seat, but for me, it was the beginning of the end. Oh, better keep a gallon of coolant in the trunk!

yosays:

September 26, 2017 10:06 pm

Dirty Dingus McGeesays:

January 30, 2014 8:39 am

In the early 80’s I went to work for GE, in the plastics division doing tech service. I spent several weeks working with different Ford suppliers and the company itself on much of the trim for the Taurus. I’m not sure of the exact amount, but it was stated that each sedan used about 80 lbs of different polymers. So much so, that GE had a Taurus on display at it’s headquarters in Pittsfield Mass.

I drove a few as rentals during my travels. As basic transportation it was acceptable, for an enthusiast not much there.

Kurt Ernstsays:

January 30, 2014 9:06 am

DDMG, I had one as a company car in Denver, circa 1990. It was great for gobbling up endless miles of straight and flat roads, but mountain driving was something else entirely. The transmission let you select overdrive, drive or 2nd, which was far too low a gear for the descent of a mountain pass. In drive, you needed to constantly apply the brakes, and with four passengers in the car brake fade down longer descents was a very real issue. It got to a point where if I was heading to Durango, I’d pop off the wheel covers to get as much cooling air to the brakes as I could.

Howard Arbituresays:

January 30, 2014 9:19 am

Dirty Dingus McGeesays:

January 30, 2014 9:44 am

Kurt.

Not sure if that was a common Ford issue, but I had a similar issue with my then girlfriends Tempo automatic. Coming down a mountain in Pigeon Forge Tn( my car was in the Shades of Yesterday show, she came up a couple days in, we were staying at a “love shack” cabin up on the mountain). I had the Tempo in 2nd gear, but was still having to get on the brakes hard. 1/2 way down it got hot enough to tear a pad off the plate. Used the parking brake to slow it up, left it in low and crept down the rest of the way. Had to find a parts store, borrow some tools and get new pads in, in the parking lot of the store. Yes, there was a lot of swearing involved.

Peter Berriossays:

January 30, 2014 9:17 am

I grew up driving my father’s ’74 Caprice and 74 Malibu and my first car was an 88 Civic. My wife and I drove a new Taurus on our honeymoon in 1994 and I have to say that I was quite impressed with the comfort and roominess of the car. With the larger engine it was fast and the transmission was on par with GMs THM. But most of all, it was well thought out, with an extra set of high mounted dash radio controls, so that you weren’t reaching for the radio itself. Overall, it was a very pleasant driving experience. We even looked at one when we bought our first new car, but got an Explorer instead.

Paladinsays:

January 30, 2014 9:22 am

When these first came out, they where “quirky” in their style, I think most would agree. I like a lot of others grew to like them. But, I always thought the first gen of these looked better as a wagon then a sedan. Louisville Ky Police tried out a few of these in cop car livery, with really bad results. One spectacular example was a veteran female (her gender neither here nor there) patrol officer had a very, very bad crash in one at high speed, that resulted in injuries to her and public. Early FWD cop cars where something that Impala and Crown Victoria driving police officers were not trained on. Was years before they started using them again.

Tony Graysays:

January 30, 2014 9:24 am

larry youngsays:

January 30, 2014 10:23 am

right. I didn’t see how that ovoid,or the frog as I call them was going to do anything in nascar. what they gave up in slickness at the super speedway’s,they got back in down force on the other track’s. when it debuted I waited for the 2 door version for racing because the front was so smooth. but it never happened as we all know.

Bill Jsays:

January 30, 2014 9:34 am

I owned this car’s immediate predecessor, an ’85 LTD wagon (read: Fairmont with a plusher interior). While an OK car, it was still like driving something from the ’60s. When I traded it on an ’88 Sable it was like entering a different dimension. Smooth, quiet and handled like no sedan I’d ever driven. The 3.0 V6 was peppy and gave me 31 mpg on a trip to Florida. I put 85,000 miles on it before giving it to my mom and it soldiered on quite a while longer with nothing more than battery and tire replacements. Performance car? No, a comparison like that is silly. But the best family car detroit had offered in a long time.

Steve Glassburnsays:

January 31, 2014 7:04 pm

SixtiesGuysays:

January 30, 2014 9:43 am

Ah yes, the car that made the world safe for the amorphous blob look. At the time it debuted it seemed that the Taurus’ design was inspired by the circa-1983 Audi 5000. The difference was that, to my eye, the Audi was a better-proportioned design.

January 30, 2014 12:05 pm

Toivo Ksays:

February 6, 2014 8:48 pm

Dyno Donsays:

January 30, 2014 9:44 am

I am disappointed (but understand) the demise of the Mercury brand and, of course, the Sable.
I have owned four of these (’87, 94, ’02, ’04), with the ’04 still running strong and am approaching 1 million cumulative miles on the four.
Not a lot of passion, but hey, they’ve gotten the job done!

Bobsays:

January 30, 2014 11:03 am

Kurt Ernstsays:

January 30, 2014 11:10 am

Bob, you are correct. If my memory is right, Mercury Marine got the contract to build the engines, as they had both the capacity and expertise. I seem to recall that a lack of capacity was why Lotus didn’t build the engine it helped design.

larry youngsays:

January 30, 2014 11:18 am

nah nah.told you so !

steve in podunksays:

January 30, 2014 10:00 am

These were great cars as an appliance; comfortable, economical and decent drivers. Their shortcomings were there less then durable transmissions and the 3.0 & 3.8 V6’s propensity for blowing headgaskets and cracking heads

Frank Ziesersays:

January 30, 2014 10:21 am

The first Taurus I ever saw belonged to my Aunt. She drove it over from the dealership the day she took delivery to show it to me. I had to be polite to my aunt of course but I thought that thing was butt ugly.
Now to the eating Crow part of this story, my Aunt drove the Taurus about seven thousand miles before going to a nursing home, it then sat in her garage for two or three years, long enough that the battery had gone dead and froze. We needed a car so I bought the ugly Taurus from my aunt, we drove it over 200K and actually liked it so much we bought another one.
A local mechanic asked me how many transmissions we had gone thru, I told him it was the original transmission. He would hardly believe me, he said ours had to be the only first year Taurus that didn’t have the tranny crunch up that he knew of.

Bill Jsays:

January 30, 2014 10:46 am

James E Barkersays:

January 30, 2014 11:08 am

our 99 Merc. Sabel has a 3.0 V6. I flushed and filled the transmission every 36K and the same with the antifreeze every 60k. 172K on it now with no head or transmission repairs. also used conditioner in the antifreeze. But I have heard the same stories about repairs that are posted here.

JBsays:

January 30, 2014 12:01 pm

My Dad’s 88 Taurus had a wonky tranny, and the brake rotors warped when the mileage was still quite low. Other than that, it was a nice car and the 3.0 V6 got good MPG, moved out strong, and actually sounded nice, unlike the unpleasant noise issued by the OHC 3.0 in my ex’s 2006 Mercury Montego..

Ed W.says:

January 30, 2014 10:52 am

I had a Taurus and a Sable. It was a big mistake. Both had the 3.8 V6. I bought the Taurus new and the Sable used. I had many problems with the trans in the Sable but it was finally fixed by the dealer. Then they both blew head gaskets at fairly low mileage which cost me thousands to repair. I wrote several letters to Ford whose answer was “we received your complaint”. That was the last Ford product I will ever buy.

zauncesays:

January 31, 2014 12:40 am

Toivo Ksays:

February 6, 2014 8:53 pm

milton Nsays:

January 30, 2014 11:38 am

I purchased a new 1990 Taurus with just about every option available. I ended up being very disappointed with quality issues. The car was comfortable and performed well, however I had a lot of problems with the quality of the car’s options requiring many trips back to the dealer.
The mouse fur upholstery looked good but had horrible durability.

John C. Kovalosays:

January 30, 2014 12:11 pm

When Sallie and I were dating, she inherited an ’86 after her Father died – he had always called it ‘the Lazarus”. It was an OK car to drive, altho never really exciting or pulse-pounding. It would make your blood pressure rise, tho, every time it refused to start if it got too hot. *%&@#^*&%$!!!!!
Also, it made a continuous motor noise from the time it was switched on, eventually traceable to the cooling fan having been rewired by those knowledgeable kids at the Ford garage by taking about an 8 gauge red wire, stripping back the end, and sticking the bare wires into the fuse block – voila! [Oh yeah, she’s just reminded me that the cruise control never did work, despite repeated trips to the dealer.]

I was never thrilled with it, and she soon tired of its annoying habits, so one day she spotted an ad in Rolling Stone with a VW Cabriolet in it and said “John, I want that car.” “Aren’t you going to sleep on it, at least?” “John, you don’t understand – I WANT THAT CAR!”

She promptly traded the “Lazarus” in on “Jessica Rabbit”, and never looked back.

January 30, 2014 12:14 pm

Toivo Ksays:

February 6, 2014 8:55 pm

MarveHsays:

January 30, 2014 12:13 pm

The Taurus was a watershed car for Ford and the American auto industry in general. I’m really surprised how many people judge a car by its looks alone. Ford’s huge mistake was to squander the lead the first generation car provided by letting subsequent models wither on the vine. The concentrated on the looks getting more and more oval while letting the mechanicals and refinement lax (Duratec engines excepted).
As for those who claim cars look all the same since the Taurus, I say, go to some non-auto enthusiasts you know and see if they can tell the difference between a 1954 Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, or Plymouth. Chrome grills and bumpers, pontoon fenders, bulbous hoods, and round headlights, all the same!

Joesays:

January 31, 2014 2:31 am

I know EXACTLY what year the BIG chevies are from 1955-1970 – even from a distance. EVERY year is different!!!
The 3 most futuristic cars ON THE OUTSIDE to DATE: 66 toronado, 68 vette & THIS – incredibly rare front end option only on the Caprice in 68http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5ReryLKm5g
ONLY this big chevy model & oddly only the coupe has ventless front side windowshttp://farm3.staticflickr.com/2590/3673234347_cec81a0a75_b.jpg
Also has new for 68 hidden wipers & if u get rear wheel opening covers it looks even more futuristic.
As soon as EPA & gov stepped in later, the cars were ruined.

Ardeesays:

January 30, 2014 12:30 pm

As a teenager, I can remember the day that my dad brought home a dark red Sable as a company car, one of the first in town. Hard to imagine now, but at the time it looked and drove more modern than any other family car (especially NA-built) at the time. Compared to his Lincoln Mark V floatmobile, I thought I was driving a sports car (in a FoMoCo family in the ’80’s, at least). All relative I guess, but it’s easy to forget how revolutionary these were – and clearly influenced by the wind tunnel and the Audi 5000 of the day.

Ray Gsays:

January 30, 2014 12:36 pm

I appreciated the 3rd member of this family, the Lincoln Continental for adding the 3.8L to the engine options for the 88 Taurus and Sable. My 88 Taurus LX was a great highway cruiser. Only 1 transmission in 260K miles, but a new ignition switch every 40K when the underengineered accessory contacts went up in smoke. The repair kit included the plug and harness wiring that Ford knew they’d botched. Had a friend with the 92 AXOD-E nightmare. Glad I missed that. My 90 SHO went the way of all Tauri, rusted away from the rear wheel wells and side rails, engine still screaming defiance as it introduced many “sportscar” owners to Taurus taillights. Now, I’m driving the 96 Continental where they wedged the 4.6L 32V into the body. 260HP makes this luxo version a stealthy treat. You can feel it when the 2nd set of intake runners opens (another Yamaha design).

Jason Herringsays:

January 30, 2014 12:44 pm

Three comments about different aspects to the Taurus story:
Seventh paragraph–Correction: that four-cylinder five-speed model was actually called the ‘MT-5’, not ‘5MT’. I’ve only ever seen ONE of those over the years, and that one was bought new by a friend in the U.S. Army who traded a stripped base model Fairmont sedan for it! (he had a trust fund set up for him by his hideously wealthy father, but he refused to touch it except for emergencies. He later committed suicide, and the MT-5 went home with his widow).
Paladin notes the lack of popularity of the Taurus police cars. The Texas DPS ran them for a year back in ’90 or ’91, then got rid of them all, much preferring the Crown Vic and the Caprice. The DPS didn’t even bother with just reassigning their Tauruses to ‘drivers license office’ duty!
Lesmore’s comments: Not sure where my old copies of Automotive News are from back then, but if I remember correctly, Chevrolet was the #1 selling carmaker in 1986 in the States, and the top selling car in the U.S. that year was the Chevrolet Celebrity. Wonder if that car sold as well as it did because the styling wasn’t as “out there” as the Taurus.

Wayne Walkersays:

January 31, 2014 4:49 pm

Brian Jsays:

January 30, 2014 12:49 pm

My first car was a used ’88 MT-5 (5MT is incorrect). So, it was the “sporty” precursor to the SHO. There was no sport nor performance about that car! I figured they slapped a few 4cyl 5speeds together to get their overall mpg average up.

1950's Car Nutsays:

January 30, 2014 1:37 pm

Merksays:

January 30, 2014 1:42 pm

I had a 1960 Ford Falcon sedan as my first car. I bought it in 1997 when i was 15. After high school (2000), I was driving the car a lot more and realized I needed another car for daily driving so that I could fix up my old Falcon. My Aunt had a ’92 Taurus she was not driving anymore and sold it to me for a few hundred dollars over the phone. I had not seen the car before this point. When i picked it up I saw that it was virtually the same color as my falcon, a seafoam green/blue. When I got home I parked it next to my Falcon and realized I was looking at 2 of the same car, from a design standpoint: Two small (save for the ’60 being small for it’s day), rounded, economical cars devoid of any bells and whistles (The Falcon even was a radio delete). They were so similar in my mind, and nearly identical in color, as far as the concept was concerned, I placed “Taurus” badges on my falcon’s fenders and put a “falcon” badge on the trunk of my Taurus. My friends thought it was hilarious! others just were confused.

John C. Kovalosays:

January 30, 2014 4:00 pm

Another footnote: this was right after Ford hired W. Edwards Deming to come out of retirement and be a consultant [in 1981 with Deming at age 81], and I believe the Taurus was an indirect result or this.

GaryPsays:

January 30, 2014 4:10 pm

I was involved in ’85 job one on the Taurus. There has been one in the family since ’89. Currently we have an ’03, 20010 mi. The family record was an ’89 LX Vulcan AXOD that clocked 378K before being donated to charity, still running. I can’t say the same for the Nissan in our driveway that I donated today with only 260K.

Jeff Burdzinskisays:

January 30, 2014 4:24 pm

jimhowie2000says:

January 30, 2014 4:52 pm

I hated the look of these from the moment I first saw them. I thought then, and still do, that they were some of the ugliest cars ever built. Unfortunately, the success of these cars proved to the auto industry that people would buy ugly cars, that beauty in a car was not necessary anymore, so they need not bother to make a car visually appealing. The Japanese have far surpassed the ugliness of even this car, with the horror shows on wheels they continue to bring out every year. My younger sister said it best the first time she saw a Taurus wagon back in 1986….”Yech! Looks like a dog turd with wheels!” Yep Donna, you nailed it!

GaryPsays:

January 30, 2014 6:00 pm

The 3.8 was the one with the head gasket problem. As I understand it the rental companies rejected the “Duratech” as the base engine for the body change ’96. The AXOD transaxle was involved in this deal. I remember scrambling like crazy to keep up with tooling till the AX4N came on line. As far as the original (’89)
SHO that was a Vulcan block with Yamaha heads.

Raymond Costasays:

January 30, 2014 5:35 pm

With just $3k to spend in 1992, and one cold weekend to shop, I bought a 1988 Taurus L station wagon with 70K miles on it. I farther liked the way it looked. For three years it was one of the best cars we ever owned. It was a safe, comfortable touring car for a family of 5. I could haul stuff in it, and even dragged a trailer 1000 miles to pick up a rebuilt Packard straight 8 with it. At 115K miles the whole car fell apart within 5K miles. The plastic header on the radiator cracked in the dead of winter. The the head gasket on one side started to leak, followed by the transmission deciding it wasn’t going to transmit anymore. We liked the car, but we’ve never owned a Ford product since.

Howard Arbituresays:

January 31, 2014 7:12 am

Hi Raymond, they were quite miserable to work on. My brother had a wagon, with the usual head gasket problems, ( dealer fix) but decided to change plugs one weekend( Don’t start THAT project on a Sun. afternoon, like plumbing projects), The plugs agin the firewall were almost un-reachable, I think he had to come up from underneath the car.

AlCrosssays:

January 30, 2014 7:20 pm

While the styling has never been a favorite of mine the Sable wagon I own has been a fantastic car with 147k miles on it and runs like a fine watch. Normal maintenance is all I have ever done. Body and interior are fine, No rust (Arizona) I’ll keep this wagon for many more years.

Garrysays:

January 30, 2014 9:08 pm

I had several of these over the years due to my job as a parts manager in a Ford Heavy Truck (RIP Ford/ Sterling) dealership. My only complaint is the multifunction switch. Why did they EVER go to the push forward function for high beams? I still cannot get used to it.Our 08 Stang has a conventional pull type switch like nearly every other manufacturer.

Bryan Gsays:

January 30, 2014 11:34 pm

When I was cleaning out my shop I found several NOS parts for first gen Taurii. Among other things I had a genuine Ford hood that had never been out of the box. Sadly, I had to throw it on the scrap pile…despite several years of trying I couldn’t find anyone, anywhere that wanted it. Just not much of a following.

Look at the inside door panels in those photos-compare the switches and how they are mounted to what GM & Chrysler were doing at the time. Ford really moved the goalposts.

oldcarmansays:

January 31, 2014 12:05 am

What most people don’t remember was the early aero – potato epithet. It didn’t take long after good reviews & sales for that to disappear. Ford bench-marked the Audi 5000, which was a fine car sullied by stupid journalism over unintended acceleration charges. The packages of those vehicle is very close. The looks eventually became very accepted and “normal”.

Chrysler actually used a Taurus as a mule for the LH package program and put in a temporary plexiglass windshield for people to drive around the HP complex to see if they could live with a windshield touchdown so far forward. They could, and it went forward.

Dougsays:

January 31, 2014 10:50 am

I was at Ford at the time of the first generation Taurus. Yes, looking back now it is an easy car to forget being not an enthusiast car, but an appliance. That said, it was so much more advanced than the other domestic cars of the time and it served as a transition car for the entire domestic car industry. Don’t compare it to modern day cars, but to the rest of the domestic industry in 1986, and you can see why it was such a success. Also, look around and see how many you see still on the road. Significant car for sure. I’d say the easily the most significant car of the 1980’s.

February 1, 2014 2:00 pm

r_Raymond Zukowskisays:

February 2, 2014 5:15 pm

There had to be other plants, but the Taurus was built in Hapeville, Georgia at the same location where Ford built the 1949 model that was also PIVOTAL for company well being. Millions, maybe a billion were spent converting the place to the new technology, but in that same location 2 very important models were produced for the blue oval.

Bob Asays:

February 2, 2014 10:19 pm

We bought an 86 Taurus MT-5. My 1st domestic car in 16 years. Loved the car, great design, FORD let the engineers design the car, but the accountants built them.

Car was great until I hit 35,000 miles …..then lots of issues developed. Every component that held fluid leaked, car would loose power and die while traveling 60mph. Lots of parts that were held together with nylon fasteners failed. 3 parking brake cables snapped within a year. What pissed me off was you could not preplace the nylon fasteners, but had to replace the entire part. The paint would wash off with water.

FORD could never find why the car would die at speed. They admitted that we had a lemon and suggested we dump it, but they did not want it as a trade in.

Needless to say to this day I have little confidence in North American cars that were built after 1972.

Toivo Ksays:

February 6, 2014 9:22 pm

Kentsays:

February 3, 2014 9:27 pm

I bought the very first Taurus to arrive at the local dealership — the one and only unit they had received, on display in the showroom. Loved the lines at first sight — so much better than the old boxy alternatives. Never had a problem. The author is right: development of the Taurus was one of Ford’s best moves ever. Prior to reading the article, if asked, I would have named the Taurus right along with the Model T and the Mustang.

Briansays:

February 5, 2014 12:14 am

I have owned a 1992 Taurus for 15 years with the Vulcan 3.0L engine ,It has out lasted and out preformed 6 other cars used for daily Transportation during that time , even in deep street snow it kept going , it has 255,000 miles use 1/2 Qt of 10/30 oil between 3,000 mile oil changes goes like demon ( after i removed the Air cleaner silencer 15 years ago ) . The original starter motor was 19 years old when i had to replace it . The original trans went 187,000 miles might have gone longer if i used my Mechanic and good Friend instead of a Quick lube that left the trans a Qt low on refill . The 1 car that made up for many others I had to spend a fortune to keep running , I consider it a member of the family as much as car .

Bob Asays:

February 5, 2014 1:04 pm

I completely agree the 1st generation Taurus should be considered a milestone design. I really loved the design, comfort and well thought out ergonomics. If Ford expended a decent effort to correct some of the build quality issues, due to using some sub par components, they could have wiped out the import market for many years.

We had lots and lots of minor part failures that were truly annoying, one after another. Our Taurus was pampered and certainly wasn’t subject to abuse or severe service, but just fell apart as we watched.

As far as styling I thought it was a great looking car. A very clean, sleek approach that made all other vehicles look boxy. if it were not for those durability problems I would still own it today. These cars should be considered collectable.

Mike Tarnowskisays:

February 7, 2014 9:28 pm

I sold Fords at Capitol Ford in San Jose and Swanson Ford in Los Gatos and I remember the Taurus was a great car with new features unlike any Ford to date.I remember being the salesman of the month and got a Taurus LX package as a demo and it was a great car,roomy,quiet and I think it had the 3.8ltr engine.Then came the SHO with the engine from yamaha,wow what a fun drive.All in all the Taurus was indeed a great car for the time.

delerium75says:

February 12, 2014 11:18 pm

I was 12 years old when my folks special ordered an ’87 Taurus LX in Medium Aegean Metallic with grey leather. They traded in an ’84 Cutlass Ciera Brougham and the Taurus was rather impressive, initially anyway, and a complete 180 from Ciera. The Ciera was square, soft riding and every inch a typical GM car…the Taurus rode firmly, its swooping shape catching the eye of a guy at church that commented on it to my dad.

I was a tad disappointed though that my dad didn’t give in to my pestering about driving an ’87 Maxima. “We need to support American jobs”, he said.

The Taurus was the family car for 7 or 8 years, taking us on a number of vacations, driving me to prom, until it was handed down to me my sophomore year of college. In its downward spiral, it had rust spots taken care of twice (and of course was a loosing battle), left me stranded twice on the highway, went through several interior door handles, was overheating (head gasket?) and the tranny started going south. So after 160K+ miles and 10 years of service, my folks sold it.

The funny thing is, its replacement was a ’95 Maxima GLE which my mother lobbied heavily for, loved and enjoyed driving for 10 years until I bought it from her in ’05.

Rogersays:

August 19, 2014 4:52 pm

Excuse me if it seems a stupid question, but if allegedly 3.5 billion was poured in, and about 350.000 units are sold each year, doesn’t profit need to be like 1.000$ for 10 years (models don’t last that long) to recuperate this I’m a bit baffled as to how this can work out to be a financial success. What are profit margins like anyway?